a bit rich?

itchybollix

Coming from a member of a group who ****ed children; trying to tell compliant that they are off-side?

puh.

see questions and answers too

sg.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0822/bradys.html
Cardinal criticises Civil Partnership Bill

[URL="javascript:showPlayer('bradys_av.html')"] [/URL]Saturday, 22 August 2009 22:10
The legislation which gives statutory partnership rights to gay and lesbian couples has been criticised by Cardinal Sean Brady.
Speaking at St John's Cathedral in Limerick, the Primate of All Ireland said the measures would hugely change peoples' concepts of the family.
The Civil Partnership Bill, which was published in June, will for the first time mean that same sex couples will be recognised as partners before the law and will be treated like married couples for tax and social welfare when registered.
Advertisement

In his homily this evening, Dr Brady said marriage between a man and a woman will always remain the ideal environment in which to raise children.
He said any government which undermines such an environment could hardly be said to be promoting the common good.
Cardinal Brady also said those who refuse to officiate at a same sex wedding would be guilty of offence and described this as 'an alarming attack on the fundamental principle of freedom of religion and conscience.'
He said the legislation leaves the door open for individuals and religious organisations to be sued in a variety of ways for 'upholding their belief that marriage is an institution exclusively for men and women'.
Chairman of the Gay and Lesbian Equality Network Kieran Rose said there is a democratic consensus for Civil Partnership.
Mr Rose said the Cardinal is entitled to an opinion on the issue and is entitled to express it, but civil marriage and civil partnerships are to do with the State.

Joey the lips

itchybollix wrote: »

Coming from a member of a group who ****ed children; trying to tell compliant that they are off-side?

.

I dont understand why you have a problem. If i was from tallaght I would not be responsable for all the crime scumbags carry out there!

If he lives by values he has a right to preach them after all it was the church who said

"Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone"

now if he personally committed the crimes i would understand you objecting. A bit like Fr Brendan Smith talking about confessions!

Ickle Magoo

By definition of their religion most members of the clergy would be in agreement with the Cardinal - most parishioners too for that matter.

How he/they can marry the moral high ground while being part of an organisation complicit in the abuse of thousands of children yet take great offence at two consenting adults tying the knot is a slightly different issue.

Zulu

Interesting.
...and what a well thought out and balanced first post! :rolleyes:

glaston

NickNolte wrote: »

The vast majority of priests aren't paedophiles and are still allowed to voice their opinions consistent with their beliefs.

But the vast majority did have knowledge of the abuses going on and turned a blind eye - thats the problem. It was always a case of protect the institution first, move em on to the next parish and pretend nothing happened.

Joey the lips

Zulu wrote: »

Interesting.
...and what a well thought out and balanced first post! :rolleyes:

Meaning what?

glaston wrote: »

But the vast majority did have knowledge of the abuses going on and turned a blind eye - thats the problem. It was always a case of protect the institution first, move em on to the next parish and pretend nothing happened.

This has always been a problem for me as well but it does not relate to the ops point in any way nor does it deflect from the fact that as nn said a lot of them are good.

additionally Many people knew about the slaughter of Jews in WW2 it does not make it right that they stood by or did not condem it but you must also consider that unless your in that moment you dont know why this was the case.

Zulu

Joey the lips wrote: »

Meaning what?

Do you really need me to explain?

philologos

OP: If even a majority of Catholic clergy were child abusers, I might agree with you. What an absurd premise to begin what could have been a legitimate topic with.

gogglebok

Jakkass wrote: »

OP: If even a majority of Catholic clergy were child abusers, I might agree with you. What an absurd premise to begin what could have been a legitimate topic with.

If you include facilitating child abuse, by allowing it to continue and not involving the police, then it starts to look close to a majority.

But it doesn't have to be a majority to seriously invalidate the Church's credibility in giving moral advice. To take something a little less serious than the beating, murder and rape of thouands of children, let's look at a lesser crime and an organisation comparable in size.

Imigine if it was revealed that several hundred postmen had systematically stolen from the mail. That their colleagues had never once reported any of them to the police. That their bosses had suppressed any evidence which was brought to them. That the thieves were not only not punished, but actively facilitated in finding new opportunities to steal. And that even now, many of the postal authorities were blatantly obstructive of any investigation.

Would you listen to security advice from the Postmaster General? Would you not consider that the institutional theft and cover-up were so widespread that everyone in the institution was responsible? And wouldn't you quite reasonably conclude that a given individual's responsibility increased according to the level of his authority in the organisation?

Institutional child abuse on the scale that the Irish church committed taints everyone in the institution. More than anything, it taints their advice on sexual matters, and on what is good for society. We've seen their version of sexual morality, and we've seen their version of a well-run state. Does anything deny it was evil?

philologos

gogglebok wrote: »

But it doesn't have to be a majority to seriously invalidate the Church's credibility in giving moral advice. To take something a little less serious than the beating, murder and rape of thouands of children, let's look at a lesser crime and an organisation comparable in size.

Of course it would. Otherwise you are tarring everyone with the same brush.

If the Catholic Church are giving people Biblically based advice on family values and on relationships, one would have to prove that the Biblical authors are wrong to de-legitimise their argument. I would hold the same view as the Cardinal in respect to concerns about families, however I am not opposed to the Civil Partnership Bill.

gogglebok wrote: »

Imigine if it was revealed that several hundred postmen had systematically stolen from the mail. That their colleagues had never once reported any of them to the police. That their bosses had suppressed any evidence which was brought to them. That the thieves were not only not punished, but actively facilitated in finding new opportunities to steal. And that even now, many of the postal authorities were blatantly obstructive of any investigation.

You would have to provide figures for how many clergy in Ireland had abused children themselves for this to be a realistic figure.

I'm not defending the relocation of priests, but they were not moved so that they would abuse more children, they were moved with the assumption that they would not continue what they did before. Again, flawed logic on the behalf of the Catholic Church, but to say they did it to encourage abuse is highly wrong.

gogglebok wrote: »

Would you listen to security advice from the Postmaster General? Would you not consider that the institutional theft and cover-up were so widespread that everyone in the institution was responsible? And wouldn't you quite reasonably conclude that a given individual's responsibility increased according to the level of his authority in the organisation?

I will listen to moral advice from everyone who can offer it to me. It doesn't mean I have to agree with it, but I certainly will listen. Cardinal Brady does bring up quite a few legitimate concerns and to ignore them just because he is a Catholic is absurd.

gogglebok wrote: »

Institutional child abuse on the scale that the Irish church committed taints everyone in the institution. More than anything, it taints their advice on sexual matters, and on what is good for society. We've seen their version of sexual morality, and we've seen their version of a well-run state. Does anything deny it was evil?

My point was that a minority were responsible, not a majority. There are plenty of good priests and good people involved in Catholicism, I can vouch for that myself. These priests went against the moral laws of Christianity. No doubt about it.

I don't think that Christian sexual morality is "evil". I do think that their corruption of Christianity was evil.

The amount of times the Ryan Report gets dragged into discussions where it isn't even relevant is just beyond me.

glaston

Joey the lips wrote: »

Meaning what?



This has always been a problem for me as well but it does not relate to the ops point in any way nor does it deflect from the fact that as nn said a lot of them are good.

additionally Many people knew about the slaughter of Jews in WW2 it does not make it right that they stood by or did not condem it but you must also consider that unless your in that moment you dont know why this was the case.

I dont think the Jews in WW2 is a fair comparison.
It was the people directly responsible for the priests who did nothing. In Wexford Bishop Comiskey knew exactly what was going on but he never bothered to deal with the problem properly but continuously moved priests from parish to parish as soon as trouble started. He facilitated even further suffering.

Even if this was just isolated to Ireland then I might think differently but do you think its a coincidence that dioceses around the world handled the same issues in the very same way?

The moral authority of the chatolic church expired years ago. Thankfully the power the church once had is diminishing too. What annoys a lot of people is that their views are given so much media coverage, like they are some sort of moral barometer!

glaston

I'm not defending the relocation of priests, but they were not moved so that they would abuse more children, they were moved with the assumption that they would not continue what they did before.

First of all that assumption is just ridiculous and I seriously doubt that anybody would be stupid enough to make it. Sure if we catch people stealing in Carlow we should just move them to Kilkenny and they wont do it again.

Secondly anybody who would make such an assumption should be held fully responsible for the inevitable consequences. Sorry kids my logic was a bit flawed but there ya go!

philologos

glaston: Read the first clause of that quotation.

gogglebok

Jakkass wrote: »

If the Catholic Church are giving people Biblically based advice on family values and on relationships, one would have to prove that the Biblical authors are wrong to de-legitimise their argument.

No, that's not right. To cast doubt on the legitimacy of someone's advice you can also question their intentions, their honesty, their moral standing, and the results of their previous advice.

Jakkass wrote: »

You would have to provide figures for how many clergy in Ireland had abused children themselves for this to be a realistic figure.

I've actually written to a leading member of the Church hierarchy requesting that figure, but he was unable to provide it.

In any case, the real question is whether the institution shares any of the guilt for the offences. The history of indulgence, cover-up, and obstruction suggests that it does.

This would be true even if only one abuser's crimes had been tolerated or covered up. In fact there are many, many more.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not defending the relocation of priests, but they were not moved so that they would abuse more children, they were moved with the assumption that they would not continue what they did before.

At best it was grotesquely negligent. At worst, it was a lot worse than that. Did it occur to no-one in the church to mount even a cursory study of paedophilia before assigning a self-confessed paedophile to a new school?

Jakkass wrote: »

I will listen to moral advice from everyone who can offer it to me. It doesn't mean I have to agree with it, but I certainly will listen. Cardinal Brady does bring up quite a few legitimate concerns and to ignore them just because he is a Catholic is absurd.

If he brings up legitimate concerns, fair enough. All I see is unsupported scare-mongering and an astoundingly distasteful emphasis on the prospect of the church being sued.

Zulu

gogglebok wrote: »

If you include facilitating child abuse, by allowing it to continue and not involving the police, then it starts to look close to a majority.

No. It doesn't.

To take something a little less serious than the beating, murder and rape of thouands of children

Thousands of children were murdered? Really? ...or are you just wildly exaggerating in the name of being balanced?

let's look at a lesser crime and an organisation comparable in size.

Or something even similar - the recent scandal of child abuse conducted by swimming instructors. Would you, today, ignore the advice of a swimming instructor? Really? Because some other evil people who happened to share their profession committed despicable crimes?
Do you not recognise how narrow minded that attitude is?

Imigine if...

Replace postmen with airport baggage handlers. It goes on. Yet we ignore it.

...so widespread that everyone in the institution was responsible?

No. Why? Because I believe that people should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

And wouldn't you quite reasonably conclude that a given individual's responsibility increased according to the level of his authority in the organisation?

True, to an extent, for the cover up.

Institutional child abuse on the scale that the Irish church committed taints everyone in the institution.

It sure does. That however, is a bad thing. Being prejudice isn't something to be proud of. In fact, it's something we should actively combat and challenge.

Open minded people recognise prejudices for what they are: ignornace.

glaston

Being prejudice isn't something to be proud of. In fact, it's something we should actively combat and challenge.

Open minded people recognise prejudices for what they are: ignornace.

Maybe you could start combating prejudice on the threads where people are attacking bankers and developers.

You could also start by contacting the cardinal and letting him know that the following statement is a display of ignorance:

marriage between a man and a woman will always remain the ideal environment in which to raise children

nozzferrahhtoo

In the OP the cardinal is quoted as saying that this legislation will cause “change”. He does not elaborate on this, but it is labelled by the writer as a criticism from the cardinal.

Change? Shock horror, save us all, anything but change!

Are we just meant to read his statement and just accept that “change” is de facto a bad thing? In fact not one thing in his statement is backed up at all. It is just his opinion. He is welcome to it, but what use is his opinion to us?

philologos

gogglebok wrote: »

If he brings up legitimate concerns, fair enough. All I see is unsupported scare-mongering and an astoundingly distasteful emphasis on the prospect of the church being sued.

I respect Cardinal Brady because of his views on many subjects, including the public role of faith.

Let's actually look at what the Cardinal did say:

In his homily this evening, Dr Brady said marriage between a man and a woman will always remain the ideal environment in which to raise children. He said any government which undermines such an environment could hardly be said to be promoting the common good.

Fair enough. I'd personally agree with this. However, the Civil Partnership Bill is much more focused on relationships rather than the foundation of the family. That is very much in marriages domain even when the bill will be passed. I can understand why there would be some concern.

Cardinal Brady also said those who refuse to officiate at a same sex wedding would be guilty of offence and described this as 'an alarming attack on the fundamental principle of freedom of religion and conscience.'
He said the legislation leaves the door open for individuals and religious organisations to be sued in a variety of ways for 'upholding their belief that marriage is an institution exclusively for men and women'.

This has happened in the USA. No doubt it has happened elsewhere. This isn't fearmongering but an actual reality. Again, the Cardinal seems informed about the debate.

Mr Rose said the Cardinal is entitled to an opinion on the issue and is entitled to express it, but civil marriage and civil partnerships are to do with the State.

I also agree with this. In a free society all should be entitled to an opinion on the issue, but the Government has to weigh up the pros and cons for themselves. It has already done this.

gogglebok

Zulu wrote: »

Thousands of children were murdered? Really? ...or are you just wildly exaggerating in the name of being balanced?

Come on, Zulu. Could you really not parse that fairly simple sentence and extract the meaning? Of course I'm not suggesting that thousands of children were murdered. But thousands were raped and beaten, and I think we can agree that this was a bad thing to do, and a bad thing to cover up.

Zulu wrote: »

Or something even similar - the recent scandal of child abuse conducted by swimming instructors. Would you, today, ignore the advice of a swimming instructor? Really? Because some other evil people who happened to share their profession committed despicable crimes?

Cardinal Brady doesn't "happen to share the profession" of the criminals. He is a leading figure in an organisation whose response to the crimes was flagrantly immoral. If he didn't know some of what was going on, he is so blinkered as to make his advice suspect. If he did, he is so morally corrupt as to make his intervention disgusting. Which do you think it was?

I'm inclined to like your analogy, by the way, but I don't know enough about the case. Did the Irish swimming authorities facilitate and then cover up child abuse as much as the Irish church did? If they did, I would question the moral authority of their leading figures.

Zulu wrote: »

Open minded people recognise prejudices for what they are: ignornace.

I'd prefer it if you didn't resort to name-calling or the condescension of directing me to a dictionary. It's not a big issue for me, but it will probably make me stop responding to your posts.

Zulu

glaston wrote: »

Maybe you could start combating prejudice on the threads where people are attacking bankers and developers.

Maybe I already have, who knows. I don't see how that’s relevant to this thread though?

You could also start by contacting the cardinal and letting him know that the following statement is a display of ignorance:
marriage between a man and a woman will always remain the ideal environment in which to raise children

Firstly, why would I contact him - I agree with him.
Secondly, other than the fact that you've stated it, how is that comment ignorant?

Marriage (being a lifelong commitment) between a man and a woman (making a balanced influence/two ideal role models) will always remain the ideal (the preferred) environment in which to raise children.

I have to say, I agree totally with that statement. What is it you disagree with? People committing to each other? Having balanced role models?? I'm intrigued.

gogglebok

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

In the OP the cardinal is quoted as saying that this legislation will cause “change”. He does not elaborate on this, but it is labelled by the writer as a criticism from the cardinal.

That's very funny, in a kind of appalling way. He really doesn't seem to be operating much beyond the intellectual level of "Down with this sort of thing".

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Change? Shock horror, save us all, anything but change!

I'll be stealing that for a placard one of the days.

Zulu

gogglebok wrote: »

Come on, Zulu. Could you really not parse that fairly simple sentence and extract the meaning?

Of course I could, I wanted to highlight the sensationalism of the comment though.

Of course I'm not suggesting that thousands of children were murdered.

Well then don't say it. It's pointless, other than suggesting it to attempt to worsen the crimes (which we all can agree don't require the exaggeration).

If he didn't know some of what was going on, he is so blinkered as to make his advice suspect.

How? An innocent man is innocent, you suggest he isn't innocent in both statements.

Which do you think it was?

I grant him the simple allowance that he was innocent.

I'm inclined to like your analogy, by the way, but I don't know enough about the case. Did the Irish swimming authorities facilitate and then cover up child abuse as much as the Irish church did?

Weellllll, I doubt it, the church was/is a far bigger institution.

If they did, I would question the moral authority of their leading figures.

...but not their professional opinion - that of swimming? You'd be happy to accept their professional opinions. Perhaps you'd accept that whatever the crime - their professional opinion, that which they studied, trained, and works in, was relevant.

I'd prefer it if you didn't resort to name-calling

Nowhere in my post did I resort to name-calling, but please report any one in which you feel I did. In the mean time, don't suggest I was abusive, as it is untrue.

or the condescension of directing me to a dictionary.

It's not condescension, it's being concise. You'd be surprised how many people gloss over the true meaning of words.

glaston

Zulu wrote: »

Firstly, why would I contact him - I agree with him.
Secondly, other than the fact that you've stated it, how is that comment ignorant?

Marriage (being a lifelong commitment) between a man and a woman (making a balanced influence/two ideal role models) will always remain the ideal (the preferred) environment in which to raise children.

I have to say, I agree totally with that statement. What is it you disagree with? People committing to each other? Having balanced role models?? I'm intrigued.

Stating that the ideal environment to raise a child is between a man and a woman has the implicit suggestion that a man and a woman will provide a better environment than a same sex couple can, thats my reading anyway.

I used to think like that too until I got to know a same sex couple with kids, now I consider myself to have been ignorant. They are comitted and act as balanced role models.

nozzferrahhtoo

Agreed.

Coupled with this is that there is a hell of a lot of his „ideal“ couples who are anything but. What organs are contained in your pants seems to have no bearing on how ideal you are as a parent. In fact, unlike some members of his church, there are a lot of us who feel that what is in your pants should be kept well out of any child's development.

There will be same sex couples who will do a lot better than opposites, and vice versa.

What we notice however is people who trot out the claim the cardinal just spewed, never back it up. They declare by fiat that it is so. No explanation why it should be so. Again it is merely his de facto assumption that “change” is bad that leads him to this false conclusion.

And even if we were to take his comment as true, in the absence of any reason to do so, what has “ideal” got to do with it? Do we go around ranking this? Even if we did, I assume a same sex couple is more “ideal” than a single parent family, and he is not speaking out against this family type. So ideal or otherwise, if he is ok with single parent families, he must be even more ok with a 2 parent family of any configuration.

Joey the lips

Zulu wrote: »

Do you really need me to explain?

Yes i would.

gogglebok

Jakkass wrote: »

Let's actually look at what the Cardinal did say.

Good idea. I can't find his full statement, but we can start with the bits you quote from the RTE report.

"In his homily this evening, Dr Brady said marriage between a man and a woman will always remain the ideal environment in which to raise children."

I don't know if he offered any evidence for this. Even if he did, he should know that X being ideal doesn't make Y bad. We already allow children to be brought up in what he would evidently consider "non-ideal" circumstances. We don't force the widowed to remarry until their kids are eighteen, for example.

"He said any government which undermines such an environment could hardly be said to be promoting the common good."

The suggestion that legalising the non-ideal necessarily "undermines" the ideal has no basis in logic or morality.

"Cardinal Brady also said those who refuse to officiate at a same sex wedding would be guilty of offence."

Of course they would. And they should be. As an employee of the state, I don't get to choose which laws I administer. If I feel strongly enough about one of them, I can resign.

Government employees are not allowed to selectively neglect their duties. Where on earth does he get the idea that this is either new or bad?

"He said the legislation leaves the door open for individuals and religious organisations to be sued in a variety of ways for 'upholding their belief that marriage is an institution exclusively for men and women'."

No-one is going to be sued for acting within the law, whatever their beliefs. If I uphold my belief that marriage is exclusively heterosexual by exclusively, er, marrying a women, nobody will sue me. If I uphold the belief by breaking the law, however, I may be charged with breaking the law.

This is pretty uncontroversial stuff, and he shouldn't be swelling it into a boogeyman.

Again, I haven't read the full statement, but if it is at all fairly represented by these quotes, then it is blustering and empty at best.

At worst? Well, Cardinal Brady has presumably had quite a lot of training in logic and morality. Is this ridiculous performance really the best he can do? I doubt it.

I think it's an attempt to stir up fear, I think it is more about propaganda than truth, and I think he is probably seizing on the issue as a way of recapturing some of the social and political power the church has quite rightly lost in recent years.

philologos

gogglebok: People have been sued in the USA for refusing to take photographs at a same sex marriage ceremony out of conscience. It is a reality. This objection is entirely reasonable. It is up to society to decide whether or not people should be punished for their beliefs though.

gogglebok

Jakkass wrote: »

gogglebok: People have been sued in the USA for refusing to take photographs at a same sex marriage ceremony out of conscience. It is a reality. This objection is entirely reasonable. It is up to society to decide whether or not people should be punished for their beliefs though.

It's not a reasonable objection to same sex marriage, though it may be a reasonable objection to stupid law suits.

That being said, I don't know the details of the case, but it is not a no-brainer. I don't feel any automatic sympathy for a wedding photographer who refuses to fulfil his contract because he disapproves of the couple.

philologos

How is it refusing to fulfil a contract? Photographers are entitled to refuse business. I don't see anyone else losing out apart from them financially. If they feel they should forego business, and decline that should be their perogative.

nozzferrahhtoo

Jakkass wrote: »

How is it refusing to fulfil a contract? Photographers are entitled to refuse business. I don't see anyone else losing out apart from them financially. If they feel they should forego business, and decline that should be their perogative.

It is possible the person in question took the contract, then did not fulfill it. We do not know as you appear to have pulled the story out of the air and not cited a source.

Maybe if you cite your source people will not have to guess what is in the story when replying to you?

Not that a single anecdote, even if real, is evidence for anything.

gogglebok

Jakkass wrote: »

How is it refusing to fulfil a contract? Photographers are entitled to refuse business. I don't see anyone else losing out apart from them financially. If they feel they should forego business, and decline that should be their perogative.

You know, neither of us has enough information to argue sensibly about this.

Zulu

glaston wrote: »

Stating that the ideal environment to raise a child is between a man and a woman has the implicit suggestion that a man and a woman will provide a better environment than a same sex couple can, thats my reading anyway.

Well it's a logical leap. He only said what he said. The "implicit suggestion" is your own prejudice.

Either way, all things being equal, a man and a woman would provide a better environment simply as there is more diversity - do you not acknowledge that?

I used to think like that too until I got to know a same sex couple with kids, now I consider myself to have been ignorant. They are comitted and act as balanced role models.

I'm sure they are, and I'm sure they are making a great success of it, and I'm sure the child will be raised as good if not better than his/her peers. However, this one instance doesn't prove anything really, and in the instance of same sex parents you do not have a male father/female mother, therefore you do not have the same intimate relationship with both sexes from birth and throughout life. You also (unless the child happens to be gay) lose out on knowledge of heterosexual relationships. You simply do not have the exposure.

I want to repose the question, because I want you to answer it: all things being equal, a man and a woman would provide a better environment simply as there is more diversity - do you not agree with that?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Coupled with this is that there is a hell of a lot of his „ideal“ couples who are anything but.

...as there are same sex couple who are anything but, this proves nothing - unless you are suggesting that same sex couples are in fact better parents?

What organs are contained in your pants seems to have no bearing on how ideal you are as a parent.

No, but having a vagina in your pants kinda excludes you from being a male role model, and having a penis doesn't make you a suitable female role model.

In fact, unlike some members of his church, there are a lot of us who feel that what is in your pants should be kept well out of any child's development.

Cheap shot. Fairly pointless. Does nothing for your argument.
1/10: More effort required.

What we notice however is people who trot out the claim the cardinal just spewed, never back it up.

I just did. Refute my points. I notice, however, other than your cheap shot, there isn't a whole lot of substance to your claim. Care to provide something substantial to back up your points?

They declare by fiat that it is so.

You mean like you've just done?

Sorry, I No explanation why it should be so.

I just gave an explanation. I await yours.

Again it is merely his de facto assumption that “change” is bad that leads him to this false conclusion.

Nope, nothing at all what so ever to do with that assumption. Nice try.

And even if we were to take his comment as true, in the absence of any reason to do so, what has “ideal” got to do with it?

Ideal is the situation I want my children to grow up in. Would you prefer "less than ideal"? ...or something else?

I assume a same sex couple is more “ideal” than a single parent family

all things considered, and assuming the single parent remains single, you are probably correct in that statement.

and he is not speaking out against this family type. So ideal or otherwise, if he is ok with single parent families, he must be even more ok with a 2 parent family of any configuration.

You are making a major leap there, so your logic is as flawed as the bridge over the malahide estuary. Because he hasn't spoken out against something doesn't mean he "must be" anything. He simply hasn't said anything.

Joey the lips wrote: »

Yes i would.

Considering the sarcasm, it means I do not believe that the post was well thought out and balanced.
"Well thought out" means something that has been considered from all perspectives, and "balanced" in this case, means pretty much the same. Now feel free to read over the rest of the posts in this thread so we can all discuss the same thing.

glaston

Well it's a logical leap. He only said what he said. The "implicit suggestion" is your own prejudice.

Its not a logical leap, he was the one talking about same sex marriage.

Either way, all things being equal, a man and a woman would provide a better environment simply as there is more diversity - do you not acknowledge that?

No. If a more diverse couple was better than a less diverse couple then he should be pushing for partners from different etnic and socioeconomic backgrounds.

I'm sure they are, and I'm sure they are making a great success of it, and I'm sure the child will be raised as good if not better than his/her peers. However, this one instance doesn't prove anything really

Please go back and read the sequence of posts. Purpose of my post was not to prove anything but to explain to the op how the cardinals comments were ignorant and prejudicial (ops words not mine).

Zulu

glaston wrote: »

No. If a more diverse couple was better than a less diverse couple then he should be pushing for partners from different etnic and socioeconomic backgrounds.

Forget him for a moment, I posed a direct question to you, can you answer it please?

Please go back and read the sequence of posts. Purpose of my post was not to prove anything but to explain to the op how the cardinals comments were ignorant and prejudicial (ops words not mine).

I really don't want to do a "you said, then I said, then you said..." here - but your comment was made as rebuttal to my post, and I've addressed it correctly. You however haven't addressed the simple questions I put to you here and here. Would you mind doing that please?

Maguined

I fail to see how the "ideal" should determine what is legal. If this was the case then poor people would not be allowed children as we can all agree having rich parents would be "ideal" as it would give the children the best available food, clothing, education and opportunities in life.

I also do not see how gender diversity enhances a childs upbringing, parents are there to provide physical care for the child, food, clothing, shelter and mental/emotional care like education, love, guidance. Since both sexes have equality in the law and you cannot suggest one gender cannot provide any of the above then two same sex partners are just as capable as different gendered partners in providing for a child and as others posters have already suggested if you do not agree with this then you think we should outlaw single parents as well.

I also find it odd how a priest by definition someone who will have no experience on intimate relationships and children feels he can offer more insight into what is the "ideal" scenario to raise children. I am not saying peoples opinions who have no direct experience with the subject matter are irrelevant, i just dont rank theirs as highly as those with experience, if i have a broken arm i rate the advice of a doctor more relevant than that of my postman so why would anyone rate a priests experience on children's development as being particularly relevant is beyond me.

Zulu

Mikaboshi wrote: »

I fail to see how the "ideal" should determine what is legal.

I certainly didn't suggest that same sex marrage should be illegal, and I don't see where he did.

Generally speaking, I understood, that in law, we determine what is illegal. Now I'm no big city lawer, so perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems to me, that that would be the logical way...

I also do not see how gender diversity enhances a childs upbringing, parents are there to provide physical care for the child, food, clothing, shelter and mental/emotional care like education, love, guidance.

Parents are also natural role models. Infants look to their father to see how a man should behave, and to their mother to see how a woman should behave. This is well documented.

Since both sexes have equality in the law and you cannot suggest one gender cannot provide any of the above then two same sex partners are just as capable as different gendered partners in providing for a child and as others posters have already suggested if you do not agree with this then you think we should outlaw single parents as well.

Ow, that sentance hurt my head.
Firstly, both sexes do not have equality in the law.
Secondly, I can, and will suggest that same sex partners can not afford an infant the exact same environment to grow up in. I've described the reasons here. How can a woman act as a male role model to an infant boy? How can a man act as a female role model to a girl? For one, a man has never had a period. How can a homosexual couples relationship fully describe a hetrosexual relationship? (It can come close, but the male/female dynamic simply does not exist)
Now, on the back of that, I'm not suggesting that same sex couple aren't capable of raising children, of course they are. I'm simply saying that, all things even and considered, a male/female couple are better equipped to raise a child - simply by being male and female.

i just dont rank theirs as highly as those with experience, if i have a broken arm i rate the advice of a doctor more relevant than that of my postman so why would anyone rate a priests experience on children's development as being particularly relevant is beyond me.

Why? What if the doctor never broke his/her arm but the postman had? By your logic the doctor would have no experience, but the postman would.

And yet the doctor has studied. A surgeon may never have had a ruptured apendix, but a builder may have - who'd you let preform the operation? The builder?

nozzferrahhtoo

You appeared to repeat my point while missing it completely, an off combination but this is what comes of post dissecting I guess. Yes, there are less than ideal same sex couples too. That is my point. Clearly the “ideal” has nothing to do with what sex the parents are. Any configuration of parents is capable of producing ideal and far from ideal parents. This was my point exactly.

However I often see people throw around phrases like “role model” like you just did without even saying what that even means. You make it sound like this is something essential to have, like air or food. There are single parents out there, and same sex parents, who do perfectly well without such outdated stereotypes. With the growing equality between the sexes I find your comment about how men and women "should behave" to just be outdated sexist nonsense. About as useful to me as your attempt to grade me when you frankly do not have the authority or qualifications to do anything of the sort. Just like my last paragraph about sex, any configuration of role models ALSO appears to be perfectly capable of producing both ideal and far from ideal parents. Again my point exactly.

What constitutes a healthy ideal environment for a child therefore appears to have little or nothing to do with the sex of the parents, no matter how much you declare by fiat that it does without back up. Safety, nurture, love, education, and stability are much more important than what is in ones pants or what stereotype role model the parent adheres to or not.

Zulu

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Clearly the “ideal” has nothing to do with what sex the parents are.

Sure it does. I've provided reasons as to why I believe it does - you haven't, except to claim you are correct. I'd submit that, at this stage, the lack of substance is because you are finding it difficult to find any. Please prove me wrong.

Any configuration of parents is capable of producing ideal and far from ideal parents. This was my point exactly.

Well not in my opinion. I guess, one can propose that any parent is an ideal parent, and therefore the "ideal" is any parent, but thats a bit facetious and not very helpful. So in order to avoid a pointless discussion, I'll ask you:

• Do you believe that there is an ideal type relationship to raise a child?
• Do you believe that an infant can tell the difference between a man and a woman?
• Do you disagree that an infant learns, to an extent, by mimickry?

However I often see people throw around phrases like “role model” like you just did without even saying what that even means.

In a discussion, we generally take certain things for granted. I believe you understood what a role model means. TBH I still do.

You make it sound like this is something essential to have, like air or food.

Nope - just that it's ideal.

There are single parents out there, and same sex parents, who do perfectly well without such outdated stereotypes.

It's not a sterotype.

With the growing equality between the sexes I find your comment about how men and women "should behave" to just be outdated sexist nonsense.

Please point out where I said anyone "should behave". I never said that - you are lieing. Stop. It's rude.

What constitutes a healthy ideal environment for a child therefore appears to have little or nothing to do with the sex of the parents, no matter how much you declare by fiat that it does without back up.

We are not discussing "healthy" environments. We are discussing the "ideal". Stop trying to build a straw man.

nozzferrahhtoo

I am afraid you provided nothing Zulu. You made a claim that was unbacked up, but attempted to by saying other things that were themselves not backed up. If you think building one thing on other unproven things then I can see why you think you have presented an argument, but alas you have not.

You have not given any reasons to think it is an “ideal”. You have not given any reasons to think that opposite sex role models are required or necessary. Yet you use the latter to bolster the former and then claim you have made an argument. Not useful.

There is no onus on anyone to prove you wrong, when you have not offered anything to suggest you are right. Yet the whole world conspires against you as it is peppered left and right with single parents and same sex households where the children all come out just fine, thus negating any declarations by fiat you have been making here. If parents of all configurations are able to succeed and fail just as well as each other, clearly the sexual configuration has nothing to do with what is "ideal".

Again however your post dissections lead you to read what I write and then ignore it. Maybe you should stop doing them. For example you asked me if I “believe that there is an ideal type relationship to raise a child?”. Please re-read post #37, paragraph 3, sentence 2. The answer is already there. You would do well to actually read things before you reply to them.

As I said, the rest of your post is throwing around catch phrases like “role models” without defining what you mean, even when pointed out that you did not define what you mean, and without you providing any reason to think such a thing is necessary. Then again you repeat that you think it is an “ideal” and again you provide no back up for this anywhere.

Please point out where I said anyone "should behave". I never said that - you are lieing. Stop. It's rude.

Infants look to their father to see how a man should behave, and to their mother to see how a woman should behave

So your accusation of me lying is in itself a lie. Stop it. Its rude.

I reject your assertion that there is any way that a man or woman "Should behave" for a child to see in the first place. This is outdated sexism and has no place here. There is no such concept, both men and women behave as people, equal and proud.

Summary> You can say over and over “its an ideal” but you have not backed this up. Any attempt to back it up comes from comments that themselves haven’t been backed up. Try harder please.

nozzferrahhtoo

Ok Zulu, let us go back over the thread and see where you backed anything up about gay and straight parenting and the ideals shall we? Let me see if I can find anything.

#4
No there is nothing here. Just your opinion on the first post.

#7
Nothing here either.

#15
Nothing at all to do with ideal parenting either.

#20
Here is the first time you say that marriage between a man and a woman is an “ideal”. Three paragraphs. The first says you agree with someone else who thinks this. The second one just declares by fiat that you think this. The third paragraph just says again you agree with yourself essentially. So here you quite literally have just declared it and not backed it up yet. I will keep reading.

#22
This post has nothing to do with the ideal parenting at all.

#32
You just declare it is "more diversity". Maybe in their pants it is, but two separate people will always provide diversity. We are all individuals.

You just declare that having an intimate relationship with both sexes through the parents is necessary. In fact most people have a lot more than their mother or father to relate to one sex. They have peers, siblings, cousins, aunts and uncles, grand parents and more. So not only have you not shown it to be necessary, you have not even shown your premise that it would even be absent, LOL

Here you first declare that having both “role models” is important without backing this up or like with intimacy that it would be absent.

The rest of the post has nothing to do with your claims so it does not support them, but I do laugh at the point where you move to define “ideal” as being what you personally want.

34
See post #22

36
This is where you make the claim that there is some way a man and woman “should behave”. Literally made up as such a concept does not exist in our culture any more. Men and women are equal human beings and this sexist notion is so out of date I did not think I would see it on this forum. The rest of this post is you repeating your claims about “role models”.

SUMMARY
So I have read over your posts word by word and I find nothing there. So far all you have offered is:

1) Declare by fiat that such a relationship is not the “ideal” one for a child.
2) Refuse to back up 1)
3) Declare by fiat that role models and how men and women should behave is important
4) Refuse to back up 3)
5) Declare by fiat that 3) some how backed up 1)
6) Outright lie that you never said anything about how men and women should behave although the truth is there in black and white for all to see.

So, what did I miss son?

philologos

There seems to be a recurring pattern in this thread, that if you do not agree with gay marriage, you are ignorant. Isn't it not conceivable for one minute that some people actually value the traditional family and want to ensure that all children have a mother and a father?

Zulu

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Please re-read post #37, paragraph 3, sentence 2. The answer is already there.

post #37, paragraph 3, sentence 2 wrote:

Safety, nurture, love, education, and stability are much more important than what is in ones pants or what stereotype role model the parent adheres to or not.

...so you do believe that there is an ideal type?

As I said, the rest of your post is throwing around catch phrases like “role models” without defining what you mean,

Role model: it's simple english.

I reject your assertion that there is any way that a man or woman "Should behave" for a child to see in the first place. This is outdated sexism and has no place here. There is no such concept, both men and women behave as people, equal and proud.

It's great to have such high flung ideals, nature however doesn't. It's simply instinct. There is nothing you can do about it. ...but, hey, good luck fighting human nature.

Summary> You clearly have your own opinion, one which can't accept basic human nature. I'm asserting this, as you believe it's "outdated sexism" to suggest that a infant sees it's parents as role models. You fail to acknowledge that men and women are different, you believe that they "simply behave as people".

While thats a nice concept I believe it's simply not true. Men and women - while equal - are very, very different. As there is such fundamental differences in our points of view, there is little point debating this further.

Clearly I'm not going to convince you that men and women are different.

Zulu

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So, what did I miss son?

<snip>
A little tip for you: read the thread, it'll help you to understand the context of the posts.

nozzferrahhtoo

Zulu,

No, since you ask, I do see any reason to think there is an “ideal type”. The diversity of human beings, family configurations, and their mutual successes and failures attests to this being independent of sex.

What I do believe is that there are ideal factors, and the ones I listed can all be very easily shown to be important in child hood development. The number or sex of the parents however I find to be very low on the list of such criteria, and you along with anyone else have also not provided any evidence to suggest otherwise. You merely declare “role models” are important without suggesting how or why or what you even mean by this.

You have shown no difference between the sexes that provides for this “ideal” you declare. You merely assert it and run. There is no concept in modern society of how one sex “should behave” and all roles in a child’s life can be perfectly performed by either sex, thus negating any concept that the presence or absence of one sex will have any impact.

Quite literally all you have achieved by this declaration is to prove to everyone that sexist ideas of how men and women should be expected to behave are still alive. Abhorrent really, and therefore no surprise you moved to outright lie and pretend you never said it.

I believe it's simply not true.

Quite clearly you do. However I am less interested in WHAT a person believes than I am in whether there is a basis or not for believing it along side them. You have offered me nothing for the latter. However I do thank you for your time, do not be under the impression it is not appreciated. If you do find any real arguments or evidence (in other words anything where you don’t just assert X, then assert Y, and then assert Y supports X), I will be quite literally AGOG to hear you return with them. Agog.

And really, after post #40 to suggest I have not read the thread really is to literally put your fingers in your ears and start going "lalalalala" making your comment about "manners" doubly ironic. (The comment snipped out of #43 16 minutes after I wrote this that is)

nozzferrahhtoo

Jakkass wrote: »

There seems to be a recurring pattern in this thread, that if you do not agree with gay marriage, you are ignorant. Isn't it not conceivable for one minute that some people actually value the traditional family and want to ensure that all children have a mother and a father?

Jakkass, you are right, such a thing is MORE than conceivable. We all have opinions and we all have the perfect right to have them.

What is interesting to me is something that philosophers call "epistemic duty". In other words I examine, and on forums like this have other people examine, my opinions so I can test them and see if there is any valid reason for them to change.

So yes, you are right, it is very conceivable for people to think this way, but I am interested in any evidence or arguments that supports me also thinking this way. However not one has been offered.

In short: I see no reason to think that gay parenting is any less ideal when compared to what we have now with straight and single parenting. I asked on this thread for anyone to present evidence I might have missed. No one has.

Zulu

Nozzferrahhtoo as you previously stated: you won't accept the concept that men and women are different, you believe they behave as people.

There really isn't anything left for us to discuss.

nozzferrahhtoo

I never claim that I will not accept a concept, and if you got that impression from my writing then one of us has failed. Let us not worry about which one but let me clarify:

I will not accept any concept that is just declared. I will accept concepts that have sufficient evidence.

You have offered nothing to suggest that in the role of bringing up children there are any "role model" differences between men and women. In society today they are equal and they can, and often do, perform all the tasks that were once considered, in our sexist dark ages, the role of one or the other.

Now what is important to children is love, safety, stability, and education. Sex is irrelevant in providing any of these things. Any role, or role model, duties required of a parent can be provided by either sex whatever the M, F, MF, MM, FF configuration of their family.

Maybe however you can quit just declaring by fiat that there is some role model difference between the two, and actually start saying what they are and why you think one can perform it while the other can not.

Zulu

Do you accept that men and women are different? Equal, but different?

Men and women are different. That is a concept that I have just declared, with no evidence. Do you accept that - yes or no?

nozzferrahhtoo

Zulu wrote: »

Do you accept that men and women are different? Equal, but different?

Do you always answer a question or request for evidence with a question?

It is too vague a question Zulu. Everyone is equal but different in the eyes of most of society and most of the documents that make up the basic constitutions of our society. So I am not sure where you are going with this.

Actually I think I know where you are going to go with it, but it would be terribly disappointing if I am right.

philologos

How is it too vague a question?

Men and women are equal in rights, certainly. However men and women also clearly differ at the same time. I would have thought this was scientifically kosher.

Zulu

I can't make it any simpler, do you accept that men and women are different?

Yes, or no.